Jump to content

Bio Coal


17 replies to this topic

#1 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 11 February 2017 - 08:33 AM

Bio Coal is a corn byproduct produced from used corn cobs and other corn waste, turning it into a coal like substance without heavy metals produced as a waste product from traditional coal. Bio Coal can be produced quickly, and can be used as a fuel substitute for coal fired power plants, with less of a carbon green house gas signature. If widely adopted, could reduce greenhouse gas production by as much as 15-16%.

#2 Rogue Jedi

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 4,908 posts
  • LocationSuffolk, England

Posted 11 February 2017 - 10:00 AM

so basicly charcoal made with waste from corn rather than wood?

#3 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 12 February 2017 - 06:45 AM

View PostRogue Jedi, on 11 February 2017 - 10:00 AM, said:

so basicly charcoal made with waste from corn rather than wood?


Seems like it. It'll be carbon neutral at least, and as mentioned no heavy metal pollution or other issues (radiation, leveling mountains, dumping wastewater into streams and killing all the fish) of regular coal. I wonder if they can grow/convert enough corn to replace what they dig out of the ground though.

Not that it matters. Coal is dying anyway, and it's a good thing. We can produce cleaner energy from renewable resources for less money. RIP coal. You won't be missed.

#4 Lily from animove

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Devoted
  • The Devoted
  • 13,891 posts
  • LocationOn a dropship to Terra

Posted 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM

View PostHeffay, on 12 February 2017 - 06:45 AM, said:


Seems like it. It'll be carbon neutral at least, and as mentioned no heavy metal pollution or other issues (radiation, leveling mountains, dumping wastewater into streams and killing all the fish) of regular coal. I wonder if they can grow/convert enough corn to replace what they dig out of the ground though.

Not that it matters. Coal is dying anyway, and it's a good thing. We can produce cleaner energy from renewable resources for less money. RIP coal. You won't be missed.


define "carbon neutral" afaik all carbone from fossiels were in the past part of the cycle. more carbone in the cycle isn't worse, plants and animals were bigger back in these days

#5 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 14 February 2017 - 06:42 PM

View PostLily from animove, on 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:

define "carbon neutral" afaik all carbone from fossiels were in the past part of the cycle. more carbone in the cycle isn't worse, plants and animals were bigger back in these days


Carbon neutral as in the carbon that it releases from burning the bio coal was taken out the previous year. As opposed to being taken out 50 million years ago.

Bigger animals and plants... I've seen some straw man arguments before, but wow. That's a pretty impressive one.

#6 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,952 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 17 February 2017 - 09:30 PM

Instead of going to Mars they should be workeding to produce fussion reactor



#7 Tarl Cabot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Tai-sho
  • Tai-sho
  • 7,642 posts
  • LocationImperial City, Luthien - Draconis Combine

Posted 18 February 2017 - 09:51 AM

View PostLily from animove, on 14 February 2017 - 02:18 AM, said:


define "carbon neutral" afaik all carbone from fossiels were in the past part of the cycle. more carbone in the cycle isn't worse, plants and animals were bigger back in these days

Had nothing to do with animals. It was produced when plants that died in swamps at certain locations around 360 million years ago going forward that were covered up, kept being pressed down causing temps to rise, slowing cooking the cellulose to turn it to brown coal, etc. In high tectonic plate regions that produced higher temperatures, the conversion could happen even quicker.

http://www.planete-e...s-spanning-eras

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 18 February 2017 - 09:54 AM.


#8 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:53 AM

View PostDavegt27, on 17 February 2017 - 09:30 PM, said:

Instead of going to Mars they should be workeding to produce fussion reactor


"They" who? There are a bunch of people working on fusion. Making some really good progress too.

#9 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,952 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:57 PM

I mean the same type of effort they put into the A-bomb should be put into fusion reactor

#10 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:04 AM

View PostDavegt27, on 20 February 2017 - 04:57 PM, said:

I mean the same type of effort they put into the A-bomb should be put into fusion reactor


That would be nice. Although I think the financial upside of developing a working and practical fusion reactor is pretty good incentive too. There are 4-5 companies out there that are making good progress. A bit of competition, and the winner gets billions. Well... some of the losers may too. If multiple solutions work out, *everybody* wins!

#11 Jeeeeeef

    Rookie

  • Mercenary
  • 8 posts

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:21 PM

The geologic carbon cycle. C comes out of volcanoes (mostly as CO2), and eventually is turns into ocean animal shells, those rain down to the bottom and turn into limestone, and that gets subducted back down into the mantle.

Fusion power research has been going since the 50's I believe. The joke is its always 50 years from producing a powerplant. :)

Unfortunately the US government is talking about cutting research and development of energy sources other than coal/oil.

#12 Kalimaster

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 3,811 posts
  • LocationInside the Mech that just fired LRM's at you

Posted 21 February 2017 - 04:30 PM

Yeah, there is talk about cutting research and development of energy sources other than coal and oil. Why? Try putting in a wind farm and the eco nuts come out of the wood work. The wind turbines kill birds, give of radiation that will kill everyone, or fire death beams at passing motorists. Gotta love it.

Now I for one am all for alternative power sources, and we need to find some. Nuke plants, nobody wants to glow. Dams, well there are the fish not to mention should a really big crack happen if you live down stream. Solar, not everybody lives in the desert. Geothermal...fear of cracking the planet. So far nobody has freaked out about bio-coal and I figured it was a safe bet to try and employ for some of our power needs.Posted Image

#13 Jeeeeeef

    Rookie

  • Mercenary
  • 8 posts

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:19 AM

Lots of wind farms are being built. Sure sometimes somebody sues for whatever reason (birds, they don't want to see the turbines from their golf club in Scotland), but every time I drive around in farmland I see a lot more of them than before.

The idea that we would cut research because wind farms are sometimes opposed in court is very transparent spin.

Actually I think the bird issue is pretty well mitigated now. They learned, by bird splatting experience, that it is necessary to think about bird migration routes before building a wind farm, or even to turn it off a few weeks a year. One was built in a really bird-splatting spot years ago. Also the newer turbines are much bigger and birds tend not to fly through them (because they are higher off the ground) and to make it more often when they do (because the blades move slower). But I'm sure there is a battle over how careful to be of birds.

Yea, we have probably built all the dams we will build in the US... unless we get significantly more desperate. Geothermal is only practical in a few weird spots. Solar works pretty well in almost the entire US, not as well in the north, but those are also the places with more dams, which are the ideal partner for solar (dams are really nice in that they are renewable, but also on-demand power - most renewable generate power according to some natural process with its own schedule).

There is also just conservation. California's per-capita electricity use has been flat since 1972, while the rest of the US doubled, and while it has put a lot more effort into conservation than the rest of the US it still has a lot of room for improvement.

Biocoal is just one version of growing fuel in plants. Like corn-ethanol. The question is therefore: can we grow a whole lot more plants cheaply. And I think the answer is pretty much: no. Its limited by water and good farmland.

However that is a very 'if all else stays the same' answer.

We could start using a lore more biofuel and stop eating meat, for example.

#14 Bilbo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Nimble
  • The Nimble
  • 7,864 posts
  • LocationSaline, Michigan

Posted 22 February 2017 - 10:39 AM

View PostJeeeeeef, on 22 February 2017 - 10:19 AM, said:

... and stop eating meat, for example.

No.

#15 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,952 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 22 February 2017 - 04:32 PM

the biggest problem with wind farms is all the flippin red lights at night time lol

#16 Heffay

    Rum Runner

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Referee
  • The Referee
  • 6,458 posts
  • LocationPHX

Posted 22 February 2017 - 05:32 PM

View PostKalimaster, on 21 February 2017 - 04:30 PM, said:

Geothermal...fear of cracking the planet.


I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that before.

Solar is already cheaper than coal. Regular ol' ground coal is dead, and fortunately isn't coming back. Renewable resources are so popular because you'll be able to get energy without buying a source material and it'll always be there. Nothing Trump does can change the basic economics.

The Solar City solar roofs with the Tesla Powerpacks are going to be all anyone puts up on homes anymore. Even natural gas power is going to have a hard time competing. The world has changed economically, and nothing can really make it go back to the old ways.

#17 Davegt27

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 6,952 posts
  • LocationCO

Posted 22 February 2017 - 06:54 PM

Quote

I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that before.


you must be to young to remember the old movie

Crack in the World
https://en.wikipedia...ck_in_the_World


Quote

The Solar City solar roofs with the Tesla Powerpacks are going to be all anyone puts up on homes anymore. Even natural gas power is going to have a hard time competing. The world has changed economically, and nothing can really make it go back to the old ways.


I they came by my house last year but thought they where over priced

#18 Revis Volek

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 7,247 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationBack in the Pilots chair

Posted 22 February 2017 - 08:36 PM

View PostHeffay, on 22 February 2017 - 05:32 PM, said:


I have to admit, I've never heard anyone say that before.

Solar is already cheaper than coal. Regular ol' ground coal is dead, and fortunately isn't coming back. Renewable resources are so popular because you'll be able to get energy without buying a source material and it'll always be there. Nothing Trump does can change the basic economics.

The Solar City solar roofs with the Tesla Powerpacks are going to be all anyone puts up on homes anymore. Even natural gas power is going to have a hard time competing. The world has changed economically, and nothing can really make it go back to the old ways.




Not if you live in the woods, i get about 2 hours of a sun a day. Solar is not an option...



And i dunno if we can crack the planet persay, and it kinda already is? The plates are not solid they flow and move and float on the mantle.

The Earth isnt as solid as people like to think.

But why waste more energy to turn the Cob into coal when you can just burn it like it is? My pellet stove takes Cob's, hardwood pellets or coal. Makes good Heat out of all of them.

Edited by Revis Volek, 22 February 2017 - 08:38 PM.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users